Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

This paper addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, focusing on the important issue of inclusive education. It draws on contemporary literature and establishes a clear, structured, and professional theoretical foundation that supports the subsequent methodological section. The methodological approach is coherent and meaningful, grounded in verifiable scientific assumptions and transparently presented. However, there are several technical and structural aspects that should be revised.

Firstly, certain elements of the reference list require adjustment to fully comply with APA citation standards, particularly with regard to italicization. There are also inconsistencies in formatting across sections — some paragraphs are indented while others are not, which should be standardized. Additionally, the heading of section 1.2 should be visually separated from the preceding paragraph, preferably by moving it to the next line.

Particular attention should be given to Table 3, which is currently too large and difficult to read due to redundant information. The table should be placed in the section dealing with the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, as it contains descriptive data aligned with that content. Furthermore, the table should be shortened by reducing spacing and removing variables already discussed in the main text (e.g., gender or age), thereby improving its readability and relevance.

Beyond these technical elements, a more substantial issue concerns the formulation of the research aim and questions. The core research objective is not explicitly stated and must be inferred from the surrounding text. Moreover, statements that resemble research questions are inconsistently presented — referred to alternately as “purpose” or “questions” — and differ in wording and focus (e.g., “to describe the overall patterns…” on page 11 vs. “to map teachers’…” on page 4). As currently phrased, these statements read more like operational tasks than clearly defined research questions. For the sake of academic clarity and consistency, it is essential to harmonize their form and content, and to align them explicitly with the overall research aim.
Finally, I commend your thoroughness and comprehensiveness of scientific reflection on the topic.

I wish you success in your future work!

Reviewer

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the professional and constructive feedback, and for the time dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Following your valuable comments, we made the following revisions:

-Reference list (APA style, italics): We carefully reviewed the reference list and corrected the formatting to fully comply with APA 7th edition guidelines, including the use of italics where required. The earlier inconsistencies were caused by technical issues when transferring references into the journal’s Word template. We are grateful for this observation.

-Formatting inconsistencies (indented vs. non-indented paragraphs): We standardized the formatting across all sections to ensure consistency in paragraph style.

-Section 1.2 heading placement: We revised the manuscript so that the heading of Section 1.2 is visually separated from the preceding paragraph, moving it to the next line for clarity and readability.

 

We thank the reviewer for the careful observation regarding Table 3. Following your constructive suggestion, we made the following revisions:

-Relocation of the table: The demographic and sociocultural data table was moved from the Results section to the Participants section (now presented as Table 1), in order to align it more appropriately with the description of the sample.

-Elimination of redundancies: Variables already fully described in the text (e.g., gender, age, religion, social group, prior experience with students with disabilities, inclusion training, and training preparedness) were removed from the table. This avoids duplication and ensures that the table complements rather than repeats the narrative.

-Streamlining for clarity: The table now presents only the additional demographic and sociocultural variables not covered in the text (e.g., marital status, place of residence, disability in family, household income, education level, teaching experience, teaching field, school type, and class size). This has shortened the table considerably, reduced unnecessary spacing, and improved readability and relevance.

We believe these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns by enhancing both the clarity of presentation and the overall flow between text and tables.

 

We acknowledge that in the original submission the research aim and questions were not consistently formulated, sometimes presented as “purposes” and at other times as “questions,” with variations in wording that could cause ambiguity. To address this concern, we revised the manuscript as follows:

-We articulated a single overarching research aim, now stated explicitly as: “The main aim of this study is to examine how teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotional concerns shape their preparedness for inclusive education within the Arab education system in Israel.”

-We reformulated the research questions into four clearly defined and consistently worded questions. These appear at the end of the Introduction, are reiterated in the Methods, and are fully aligned with the Results and Discussion sections.

-We removed inconsistent phrasing (e.g., “to map…” vs. “to describe…”) and ensured that the wording of the research questions remains identical throughout the manuscript.

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the clarity, coherence, and academic precision of the paper, fully addressing the reviewer’s concern.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is generally well-structured and informative. However, I believe it would benefit from improvements in the following areas:

1. Please revise the title for clarity and academic style by adding commas between the terms and separating the main title from the subtitle with a colon. For example: Supporting Teacher Professionalism for Inclusive Education: Integrating Cognitive, Emotional, and Contextual Dimensions
2. Please consider beginning section 1.2 on a new line.
3. In section 2.2, the authors state that “The 225 ATIES has demonstrated good internal consistency in previous research and in the current study (Cronbach’s α = .895)” (page 5). However, they do not indicate which previous studies are being referred to.
4. In subsection 2.4 of the Materials and Methods section, the authors refer to the research questions and the way these will be addressed. However, the research questions are not explicitly formulated. Instead, the authors have chosen to state the purposes of the study. For the sake of clarity, I kindly suggest reconsidering the terminology in formulations such as “to address the first research question...” or “the second research question...” (see page 6).
5. I kindly ask the authors to check the consistency of the data reported in the first paragraph of the Results section (page 7) with the values presented in Table 1. In some cases, there are slight discrepancies (e.g., SD = 0.58 in the text, while the table shows 0.57).
6. Please correct the sentence “Demographic and sociocultural background of the participances presented in Table 3.” (page 8, line 364). The word “participances” should be replaced with “participants.” A verb is also missing.
7. Please correct the title of Table 3 by using the term “participants” instead of “participances.”
8. The content of Table 3 appears to be too extensive, as it includes categories that are not discussed or analyzed in the manuscript. I recommend either reducing the table to the relevant categories or ensuring that all categories are addressed in the analysis.
9. In the Discussion section, the authors make some recommendations regarding ways in which teachers can be prepared for the requirements of inclusive education. However, these remain predominantly descriptive and general. Considering that the study was conducted in a specific context with Arab elementary school teachers, it would be useful for the authors to provide more concrete implications concerning how these teachers could be better prepared for inclusive education.
10. Please note that on page 5, the citation “Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin (2012)” should be revised to “Sharma et al. (2012)” to ensure consistency with APA citation guidelines.
11. The following references are included in the reference list but are not cited in the text:

• Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785.
• Malinen, O. P., Savolainen, H., & Xu, J. (2012). Beijing in-service teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 526–534.

Please ensure that all references listed are also cited in the manuscript, or otherwise remove them from the reference list.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, we made the following revisions:

-Title: The title has been revised for clarity and academic style, as recommended. The revised title now reads: Supporting Teacher Professionalism for Inclusive Education: Integrating Cognitive, Emotional, and Contextual Dimensions.

-Section 1.2 formatting: We have revised the manuscript so that Section 1.2 begins on a new line, ensuring clearer visual separation from the preceding text.

-Section 2.2 (ATIES reliability references): We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In the original version, we noted that the ATIES had demonstrated good internal consistency in previous research but did not provide supporting references. We have now revised the text to include a specific citation. The sentence in Section 2.2 has been modified to read:

“The ATIES has demonstrated good internal consistency in previous research (Malinen et al., 2012) and in the current study (Cronbach’s α = .895).”

This addition clarifies the empirical basis for the scale’s reliability and addresses the reviewer’s concern.

 

-Section 2.4 (Research questions vs. purposes): We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to the inconsistent terminology regarding the research questions. Following your valuable recommendation, we revised the manuscript to explicitly formulate the research questions, ensuring clarity and consistency.

In the Introduction, we now present a single overarching research aim followed by four clearly formulated research questions:
“The main aim of this study is to examine how teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotional concerns shape their preparedness for inclusive education within the Arab education system in Israel. To address this aim, the study focused on the following research questions: (1) What are the overall patterns of teachers’ attitudes, emotional concerns, and self-efficacy toward inclusive education?; (2) How are these three constructs interrelated?; (3) How do demographic and sociocultural variables (e.g., gender, religious affiliation, social group) influence teachers’ inclusion-related perceptions?; and (4) Do emotional concerns mediate the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and their self-efficacy for inclusive teaching?”

In the Discussion, we reiterated the same aim and research questions to ensure alignment:
“The main aim of this study was to examine how teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotional concerns shape their preparedness for inclusive education within the Arab education system in Israel. To address this aim, the study was guided by four research questions: (1) What are the overall patterns of teachers’ attitudes, emotional concerns, and self-efficacy toward inclusive education?; (2) How are these three constructs interrelated?; (3) How do demographic and sociocultural variables (e.g., gender, religious affiliation, social group) influence teachers’ inclusion-related perceptions?; and (4) Do emotional concerns mediate the relationship between teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and their self-efficacy for inclusive teaching?”

These revisions harmonize the terminology throughout the manuscript and fully address the reviewer’s concern.

 

-Consistency between text and Table 2: We thank the reviewer for noting the minor inconsistencies between the descriptive statistics reported in the text and those presented in Table 2. We have carefully checked all values and revised the text so that it now fully corresponds to the exact figures shown in the table.

 

-Terminology, tables, and references: We thank the reviewer for these detailed and constructive comments. Based on your suggestions, we made the following revisions:

Correction of terminology and sentence structure: The sentence on page 8 has been revised to read: “Additional demographic and sociocultural characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.” The term participants is now used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Table title and content: The title has been corrected to “Table 1. Demographic and Sociocultural Background of the Participants.” In addition, the table has been reduced to include only variables not already described in the text, thereby improving its readability and relevance.

APA citation consistency: The reference to the TEIP scale has been corrected to follow APA style: “Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale (Sharma et al., 2012).”

Reference list alignment: The article by Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008) has been removed from the reference list, as it was not cited in the text. The article by Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu (2012), however, is now cited in Section 2.2 to support the reliability of the ATIES scale.

 

-Discussion (concrete implications for Arab teachers)

We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. Following your recommendation, we have expanded the Discussion to include context-specific implications for teacher education in Arab schools. In particular, we added the following paragraph, which outlines concrete strategies tailored to the sociocultural realities of Arab teachers in Israel:

“To translate these insights into practice, teacher education in Arab schools should incorporate culturally responsive components that directly address both pedagogical and emotional preparedness. For example, practicum placements in local Arab schools with structured supervision can provide authentic exposure to diverse learners while building teachers’ confidence in real contexts. Training modules should also include strategies for engaging families and communities, where stigma and limited awareness of disability often shape parental collaboration. Furthermore, peer-mentorship and professional learning communities within Arab schools can create safe spaces for teachers to share challenges and develop resilience collectively. Finally, targeted workshops that integrate religious and cultural narratives supportive of inclusion may help reduce anxiety and strengthen teachers’ sense of efficacy by aligning inclusive practices with community values. These context-specific recommendations complement broader theoretical contributions, which extend beyond the Arab education system and inform international debates on teacher professionalism.”

This addition ensures that the discussion provides not only general implications but also concrete, practice-oriented recommendations relevant to the specific educational context under study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper takes an interesting approach to exploring teachers’ attitudes to inclusive education by investigating correlations from the results of the three instruments used, allowing for the limitations given in section 4.1. It is good to see the importance of practical experience highlighted as an important part of the development of teachers with regard to inclusive education.

In section 2.2 it would help clarity if the paragraphs about the three instruments used subheadings rather than just giving the names of the instruments as the first sentence in each paragraph. In Table 1 use 2.90 rather than 2.9.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the supportive comments on our study. Following your suggestions:

-In Section 2.2, we added clear subheadings for each of the three instruments to improve readability and clarity. The revised section now reads as follows:

2.2. Instruments

…

2.2.1 Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES)

…

2.2.2 Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education – Revised (SACIE-R)

…

2.2.3 Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale (TEIP)

…

 

-In Table 2 (Descriptive Statistics for ATIES, SACIE-R and TEIP), we corrected the value from 2.9 to 2.90 as recommended.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all previous comments and improved the clarity and quality of the paper.